KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 19 Sayı: 1

Destekleme ve Yetiştirme Kursları Kapsamındaki Fen Dersine İlişkin Öğrencilerin Üstbilişsel Strateji Eğilimlerinin İncelenmesi

Investigation of Metacognitive Strategy Tendencies of Students in Science Course within the Scope of Support and Training Courses

Emrullah Deniz(MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI)0000-0002-3763-2234
Sayfa
113–141
Yayın Tarihi
2025-06-27
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Öğrencilerin herhangi bir öğretimsel müdahale olmadan ÜÖS puanlarının artması, seçime dayalı DYK’nın öğrencilerin öğrenme görevlerine aktif katılımını artırdığı ve derse yönelik motivasyonel süreçleri teşvik ettiğini göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Yaygın eğitim kapsamındaki destekleme ve yetiştirme kurslarında (DYK) öğrencilerin ders başarısının artırılması hedeflenmektedir; ancak, bu süreçte öğrencilerin motivasyonel bileşenlere ilişkin algılarının ne yönde değiştiği dikkate alınmamaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu ihtiyaca yönelen bu araştırma, yaz dönemi DYK kapsamındaki öğrencilerin fen dersi bağlamındaki motivasyonel bir bileşen olan üstbiliş öğrenme stratejilerine (ÜÖS) ilişkin algılarının boylamsal eğilimlerine odaklanmıştır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Öğrencilerin herhangi bir öğretimsel müdahale olmadan ÜÖS puanlarının artması, seçime dayalı DYK’nın öğrencilerin öğrenme görevlerine aktif katılımını artırdığı ve derse yönelik motivasyonel süreçleri teşvik ettiğini göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Üstbiliş · okul dışı eğitim · fen eğitimi

Özet

Yaygın eğitim kapsamındaki destekleme ve yetiştirme kurslarında (DYK) öğrencilerin ders başarısının artırılması hedeflenmektedir; ancak, bu süreçte öğrencilerin motivasyonel bileşenlere ilişkin algılarının ne yönde değiştiği dikkate alınmamaktadır. Bu ihtiyaca yönelen bu araştırma, yaz dönemi DYK kapsamındaki öğrencilerin fen dersi bağlamındaki motivasyonel bir bileşen olan üstbiliş öğrenme stratejilerine (ÜÖS) ilişkin algılarının boylamsal eğilimlerine odaklanmıştır. İlişkisel tarama modelinde yürütülen bu araştırmaya, dört farklı ortaokuldan toplamda 622 öğrenci (%51.6 kadın; %48.4 erkek) katılmıştır. Ulaşılan sonuçlara göre, öğrencilerin ÜÖS kullanma eğilimleri, boylamsal olarak anlamlı düzeyde artmıştır. Buna ek olarak, kadın ve erkek öğrencileri yansıtan gruplar arası sonuç, iki grubun ÜÖS puanları arasında anlamlı bir farklılık oluşmadığını yansıtmaktadır. Öğrencilerin herhangi bir öğretimsel müdahale olmadan ÜÖS puanlarının artması, seçime dayalı DYK’nın öğrencilerin öğrenme görevlerine aktif katılımını artırdığı ve derse yönelik motivasyonel süreçleri teşvik ettiğini göstermektedir. Bu da öğrencilerin öğrenme sırasında ve sonunda bilişsel stratejileri aktif olarak kontrol ettikleri anlamına gelmektedir. Sonuçlar, öğrencilerin fen dersine yönelik yaygın ve informal öğrenme ortamlarından daha fazla yararlanmalarının gerektiğini göstermektedir. Kursların kapsayıcılığının, öğrenme kayıpları yüksek olan, fen dersine karşı ilgi düzeylerinde gerileme olan ve sosyoekonomik dezavantajlara sahip olan öğrenciler dahil edilerek genişletilmesi, öğrenciler arasında akademik yeterlikler açısından homojenliği artırabilir. Dolayısıyla, üstbiliş ve buna bağlı öğrenme stratejilerinin rutin fen eğitiminde yer edinebilmesi için, politika yapıcıların öğretim programlarında ve öğretmen eğitiminde bunu kolaylaştıracak süreçleri hazırlamaları gerekmektedir.

Abstract

Support and training courses (STCs) within the scope of non-formal education, it is aimed to increase students' course success; however, the direction in which students' perceptions of motivational components change in this process is not taken into account. The present study is dedicated to examining the longitudinal trends of students' perceptions of metacognitive learning strategies (MLS) within the context of science lessons during the summer term. A total of 622 students (51.6% female; 48.4% male) from four different secondary schools were involved in the research, which utilized the relational screening model. The findings indicate a significant longitudinal increase in students' tendencies to use MLS. Additionally, the intergroup analysis comparing female and male students revealed no significant difference in MLS scores between the two groups. The rise in students' MLS scores without any instructional intervention indicates that choice-based STCs increase students' active engagement in learning tasks and encourages motivational processes related to the course. This underscores students' active control of cognitive strategies during learning and upon completion of tasks. The results show that students need to benefit more from non-formal and informal learning environments for science classes. Expanding the inclusiveness of STCs by including students with high learning losses, declining interest in science courses, and socioeconomic disadvantages may increase homogeneity among students regarding academic competencies. Therefore, policymakers should consider integrating metacognition and associated learning strategies into routine science education by devising processes that facilitate this integration in curricula and teacher education.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Deniz, E. (2025). Destekleme ve Yetiştirme Kursları Kapsamındaki Fen Dersine İlişkin Öğrencilerin Üstbilişsel Strateji Eğilimlerinin İncelenmesi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 1, 113–141. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1566280

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (71)

  1. Afrashteh, M. Y., & Rezaei, S. (2022). The mediating role of motivated strategies in the relationship between formative classroom assessment and academic well-being in medical students: A path analysis. BMC Medical Education, 22(38), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03118-y
  2. Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). Student engagement with science in early adolescence: The contribution of enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.08.001
  3. Aküzüm, C., & Saraçoğlu, M. (2018). Investigation of secondary school teachers’ attitudes towards supporting and training courses. Turkish Jourmal of Educational Studies, 5(2), 97-121. https://doi.org/10.33907/turkjes.423152
  4. Apple, M. W. (2000). The hidden costs of reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 429-435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904800014003005
  5. Atay, A. D. (2014). Investigation on secondary school students’ motivation levels and metacognitive awareness on learning science (Publication No. 372569) [Masters’s thesis, Adnan Menderes University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Centre.
  6. Aydın, E., & Kılıç-Mocan, D. (2022). Examining the role of science education on the metacognitive awareness of middle school students. Trakya Journal of Education, 12(2), 759-770. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.934856
  7. Bağçeci, B., Döş, B., & Sarıca, R. (2011). An analysis of metacognitive awareness levels and academic achievement of primary school students. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 8(16), 551-566. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mkusbed/issue/19554/208364
  8. Bannert, M., Sonnenberg, C., Mengelkamp, C., & Pieger, E. (2015). Short-and long-term effects of students’ self-directed metacognitive prompts on navigation behavior and learning performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 293-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.038
  9. Ben-David, A., & Zohar, A. (2009). Contribution of meta-strategic knowledge to scientific inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1657-1682. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802162762
  10. Ben-Eliyahu, A., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2015). Integrating the regulation of affect, behavior, and cognition into selfregulated learning paradigms among secondary and post-secondary students. Metacognition Learning, 10(1), 15-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9129-8
  11. Birdsell, B. S., Ream, S. M., Seyller, A. M., & Zobott, P. L. (2009). Motivating students by increasing student choice [Masters’s thesis, Saint Xavier University].
  12. British Psychological Society (2021). Code of ethics and conduct. https://explore.bps.org.uk/content/report-guideline/bpsrep.2021.inf94
  13. Bozbayındır, F., & Kara, M. (2017). Problems faced at supporting and training courses (STC) and solution suggestions according to teacher opinions. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 7(2), 324-349. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.335982
  14. Böheim, R., Schnitzler, K., Gröschner, A., Weil, M., Knogler, M., Schindler, A. K., Alles, M., & Seidel, T. (2021). How changes in teachers' dialogic discourse practice relate to changes in students' activation, motivation and cognitive engagement. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 28, Article 100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100450
  15. Carter, L. (2005). Globalisation and science education: Rethinking science education reforms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 561-580. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20066
  16. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  17. Cooper, M. M., & Sandi-Urena, S. (2009). Design and validation of an instrument to assess metacognitive skillfulness in chemistry problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 86, 240-245. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed086p240
  18. Çağrı Biber, A., Tuna, A., Polat, A. C., Altunok, F., & Küçükoğlu, U. (2017). Student opinions on supporting and training courses applied in middle school. Journal of Bayburt Education Faculty, 12(23), 103-119. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/befdergi/issue/30012/298473
  19. DeBoer, G. E. (2011). The globalization of science education. Journal of research in science teaching, 48(6), 567-591. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20421
  20. Deniz, E. (2023). The effect of an autonomy supporting instruction on students' science lesson control-value perception, emotion regulation and metacognitive learning strategies, teacher autonomy support and control perception and course success (Publication No. 775395) [Doctoral dissertation, Fırat University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Centre.
  21. Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13, 277-287. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277
  22. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
  23. Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (2002). Cognitive development (4th ed.). Prentice Hall.
  24. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
  25. Fooladvand, M., Yarmohammadian, M. H., & Zirakbash, A. (2017). The effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in academic achievement: A systematic review. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences. 3(1), 313-322. https://doi.org/10.18844/prosoc.v3i1.1780
  26. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaulate research in education (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill International Edition.
  27. Frye, H. (2010). Voices of summer: Interviews with middle school students repeating academic courses in summer school [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University]. VCU Scholars Compass. https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/2148
  28. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education.
  29. Harris, C. J., Penuel, W. R., DeBarger, A., D’Angelo, C., & Gallagher, L. P. (2014). Curriculum materials make a difference for next generation science learning: Results from year 1 of a randomized control trial. SRI International. https://www.sri.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/pbis-efficacy-study-y1-outcomes-report-2014.pdf
  30. İncirci, A., İlğan, A., Sırem, Ö., & Bozkurt, S. (2017). Students’ views about supportive and educational courses in secondary schools. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Education, 42, 50-68. https://doi.org/10.21764/efd.84291
  31. Jessani, S. I. (2015). Science education: Issues, approaches and challenges. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 2, 79-87. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v2i1.51
  32. Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Metacognition in chemical education: Question posing in the case-based computerized learning environment. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 37, 403-436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9054-9
  33. Kandal, R., & Baş, F. (2021). The prediction status of secondary school students’ metacognitive awareness, self-regulatory learning strategies, anxiety and attitude levels towards mathematics on mathematics achievement. International Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics, 8(1), 27-43. https://doi.org/10.17278/ijesim.834851
  34. Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Nobel.
  35. Karadeniz, Ş., Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Kılıç Çakmak, E., & Demirel, F. (2008). The Turkish adaptation study of motivated strategies for learning questionnaıre (MSLQ) for 12-18 year old children: results of confirmatory factor analysis. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4), 1-10. https://www.tojet.net/articles/v7i4/7412.pdf
  36. Koop, B. J. (2010). Evaluating summer school programs and the effect on student achievement: The correlation between stanford-10 standardized test scores and two different summer programs [Doctoral dissertation, Lindenwood University]. https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/dissertations
  37. Liou, P.-Y., Wang, C.-L., Lin, J. J. H., & Areepattamannil, S. (2020). Assessing students’ motivational beliefs about learning science across grade level and gender. Journal of Experimental Education, 89(4), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2020.1721413
  38. Li, F., & Wang, L. (2024). A study on textbook use and its effects on students’ academic performance. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 6(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-023-00094-1
  39. Magaji, Z. B., & Umar, R. T. (2016). Effect of metacognitive learning strategy on academic achievement of business education students at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. ATBU Journal of Science, Technology & Education (JOSTE), 4(2), 28-36. https://www.atbuftejoste.com.ng/index.php/joste/article/view/220
  40. Miller, K. (2007). The benefits of out-of-school time programs. Principal’s Research Review, 2(2), 1-6.
  41. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018). Science course curriculum. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201812312311937FEN%20B%C4%B0L%C4%B0MLER%C4%B0%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20PROGRAMI2018.pdf
  42. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2024). Guidelines for support and training courses. https://ekurs.meb.gov.tr/Dosya/DYK_YONERGESI_2024.pdf.
  43. Mudd, M. A. (2010). Student choice: A motivational strategy to increase achievement among middle school students (Publication No. 3398582) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University].
  44. Neuenhaus, N., Artelt, C., Lingel, K., & Schneider, W. (2011). Fifth graders metacognitive knowledge: General or domain-specific? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26, 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0040-7
  45. Oğuz, A., & Kutlu Kalender, M. D. (2018). Relationship between metacognitive awareness and self-efficacy of secondary school students. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 14(2), 70-186. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.319267
  46. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2018a). PISA 2018 global competence. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/innovation/global- competence
  47. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2018b). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2018/06/the-future-of-education-and-skills_5424dd26/54ac7020-en.pdf
  48. Öztürk, S., & Serin, M. K. (2020). Examination of pre-service primary school teachers’ metacognitive awareness with anxiety towards mathematics teaching. Kastamonu Education Journal, 28(2), 1013-1025. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.705074
  49. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research evaluation methods. Sage. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X0300300213
  50. Pellegrino, J. W. (2020). Sciences of learning and development: Some thoughts from the learning sciences. Applied Developmental Science, 24(1), 48-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2017.1421427
  51. Phillips, N., & Lindsay, G. (2006). Motivation in gifted students. High Ability Studies, 17(1), 57-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130600947119
  52. Pintrich, P. R., & Smith, D. A. F. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024
  53. Preacher, K. J., Wichman, A. L., MacCallum, R. C., & Briggs, N. E. (2008). Latent growth curve modeling. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315755649-13
  54. Rashid, S., & Rana, R. A. (2019). Relationship between the levels of motivation and learning strategies of prospective teachers at higher education level. Bulletin of Education and Research, 41(1), 57-66. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1217936.pdf
  55. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
  56. Sarıca, R. (2018). Teachers’ opinions about supporting and training courses. Journal of Millî Eğitim, 48(221), 91-122. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/milliegitim/issue/43527/533020
  57. Songer N. B., & Kali Y. (2022). Science education and the learning sciences: A co-evolutionary connection. In Sawyer R.K. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 486-503). Cambridge University Press.
  58. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
  59. Teng, M. F. (2020). The role of metacognitive knowledge and regulation in mediating university EFL learners' writing performance. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(5), 436-450. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1615493
  60. Thuneberg, H., Salmi, H., Vainikainen, M.-P., Hienonen, N., & Hautamäki, J. (2022). New curriculum towards big ideas in science education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 28(4), 440-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2022.2062739
  61. Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2013). Metacognitive skills and intellectual ability of young adolescents: A longitudinal study from a developmental perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29, 117-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0190-5
  62. Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2018). Teachers' mastery goals: Using a self‐report survey to study the relations between teaching practices and students' motivation for science learning. Research in Science Education, 48(1), 181-206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9565-3
  63. Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Learning to self-monitor and self-regulate. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 197-218). Routledge.
  64. Veenman, M. V. J. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Definitions, constituents, and their intricate relation with cognition. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research, contemporary trends and issues in science education (pp. 21-36). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_2
  65. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938
  66. Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D. P., Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S., Almeqdad, Q., & Demetriou, D. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 63-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9033-1
  67. Winne, P. H., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Metacognition. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 63-87). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.006
  68. Xiao, Y., & Zhao, A. (2024). Empowering learners through the application of metacognition in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing. Journal of Asia TEFL, 21(2), 506-514. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2024.21.2.18.506
  69. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin.
  70. Zohar, A., & Ben David, A. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9019-4
  71. Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49, 121-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.847261